One on One: Eternal Damnation VS Universal Salvation (Logos_X VS Apologist)

Status
Not open for further replies.

logos_x

New member
Apologist,

Consider the following, please:

As the early Egyptian settlers along the Nile lost virtually all truth they had before the flood and through their ancestral family of Noah, they replaced that lost knowledge with strange and fanciful myths. And, as they lost knowledge of the True God, which brought them safely through the flood, they began worshipping man-made gods. Although they lost sight of the True God and His teachings, they did not, however, loose sight of the world’s first giant lie.

That first recorded lie in history survived the first couple of thousand years, survived the flood of Noah’s day, survived the expansion of civilization in Mesopotamia, through all the myriads of Egyptian mythology, the Exodus, the four world-ruling kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, survived the introduction of Christianity into the world, survived the Dark Ages, the Middle ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, survived the modern translations of Scriptures, and is presented flourishing in a frenzy of Christian world evangelism.

This "damnable heresy," is taught and believed with such vigor and enthusiasm, that to speak the Scriptural truth against it is to open oneself up to ridicule and persecution from the Christian community. Any outsider coming into the Christian faith would surely believe that it was God who said, "you shall NOT SURELY die," and that it was Satan who said, "you shall SURELY die" for that is what the Church believes and teaches, contrary to the hundreds of Scriptures which state otherwise.

This lie is the very bedrock of not only orthodox Christian theology, but also that of virtually every pagan and heathen religion on the face of the earth, throughout the history of the world.

The fear of the hereafter; the fear of being tortured in some hellhole of eternal fire, the fear of the clergy and the authority of the Church, this hideous, hideous fear, is the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is in fact, the money machine that keeps the wealth flowing into the Christian coffers.

God said: "to die, you shall surely be dying," (Gen. 2:17) and "Adam… DIED" (Gen. 5:5). Paul said that "For ALL have sinned," and that "The wages of sin is DEATH…" And therefore: "…in Adam ALL DIE…" (I Cor. 15:22). What theologian calling himself a Christian would deny these profound Scriptural statements of Truth?

Well, now that you asked, I’ll give you one such example. Recently I turned the channel to TBN, while Jack Van Impe was on. I thought I heard the statement, "we never die." "Once we are born we NEVER DIE." Followed by this statement: "That soul, that spirit goes on to live forever."

What can I say to that unscriptural nonsense except, Oh really? By the way, although Jack claims to have tens of thousands of Scripture Verses memorized, not one verse was quoted to back up either of these quotations from his program. And how is it even possible that the "soul and spirit" can be confused as to be one and the same thing. Let me give you a Scripture verse on that:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit…" (Heb. 4:12).

Clearly, the soul and the spirit are two different things which can be separated one from the other. I’ll bet that Jack even has this verse memorized. But of what value is it to memorize these verses and not teach or believe what they say?

God said to Adam: : "you shall SURELY die" (Gen. 2:17)

But:

The serpent said: "you shall NOT surely die" (Gen. 3:4).

Theologians say: "you shall NOT surely die."

Christianity says: "you shall NOT surely die."

King James says: "you shall NEVER die" (John 11:26).

Van Impe says: "Once we are born we NEVER die."

So who ya gonna believe?

The whole "orthodox" Christian Church teaches that man’s soul is, "immortal."

Albeit God contradicts the whole Christian World by saying: "you shall surely die." Man is not immortal. Man has no immortal soul. God only, and "only He has immortality" (I Tim. 6:16).

I will now put the final Scriptural nail in the coffin of the "immortal soul" doctrine. I will now give you a Scripture that states that there was no such thing as an "immortal" soul, or an immortal anything concerning man in the Old Testament Scriptures. Certainly there is such a thing as "immortality," but it assuredly is not something that any man save Jesus has ever possessed:

Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His Own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is NOW made manifest by the APPEARING of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who has abolished death [no one abolished death in the Old Testament], and has brought life and IMMORTALITY TO LIGHT THROUGH THE GOSPEL" (II Tim. 1:9-10).

There it is. It is ONLY through the teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that the knowledge of a coming "immortality" for mankind was made known, and even then, it is something that is yet future; something that must be "put on" at the time of the resurrection of the dead (I Cor. 15:53), not something that any sinning human has ever possessed.
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
logos_x said:
The soul is your mind, heart, emotions, and will.
It is your consciousness and it is your "breath".
It is the same thing that all life is made of..It is the "imager" or reflector of God, but it is not God.
You are still confusing soul with Spirit.

Of all the things that God created, of all the animals that God formed with his own hands, into Man alone did he breath the breath of life. That speaks for itself.

Staticity is not implied in God's word.

The evidence of absense does not equate to an absense of evidence. Your misunderstanding of scripture is irrelevent here. Do you have any real logical reason to doubt that God, issuing forth the breath of life as opposed to forming it, would have given a breath of life composed of anything but himself? If indeed he did, then please, name to me the components of this breath of life.

If, indeed then, he issued forth the breath of life from himself, who is static, then how can the soul be anything else than that? Don't bother giving scripture. Mother Church read the same scriptures and gave completely different understandings based on it. Logically, man, Universalism is bull, scripture (which is easily misunderstood by nonCatholics) aside.


I was being fececious, but alright. Lemme replace that with anything else um.......Prove to me that trucks weighing more than 2 tons go against God's law. If you can't, you must concede either that your reasoning is bull, or that trucks are evil.
 

logos_x

New member
Apologist said:
Of all the things that God created, of all the animals that God formed with his own hands, into Man alone did he breath the breath of life. That speaks for itself.



The evidence of absense does not equate to an absense of evidence. Your misunderstanding of scripture is irrelevent here. Do you have any real logical reason to doubt that God, issuing forth the breath of life as opposed to forming it, would have given a breath of life composed of anything but himself? If indeed he did, then please, name to me the components of this breath of life.

If, indeed then, he issued forth the breath of life from himself, who is static, then how can the soul be anything else than that? Don't bother giving scripture. Mother Church read the same scriptures and gave completely different understandings based on it. Logically, man, Universalism is bull, scripture (which is easily misunderstood by nonCatholics) aside.



I was being fececious, but alright. Lemme replace that with anything else um.......Prove to me that trucks weighing more than 2 tons go against God's law. If you can't, you must concede either that your reasoning is bull, or that trucks are evil.

:rotfl:

You are clearly stuck with nothing to argue left.

Until you come up with anything with substance...there is really no reason to continue.
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
logos_x said:
:rotfl:

You are clearly stuck with nothing to argue left.

Until you come up with anything with substance...there is really no reason to continue.


That is precisely what i am arguing. If the soul is not the same substance of God, then what is it comprised? Either answer the question, or concede the point.
 

logos_x

New member
Apologist,

For the sake of this discussion, the only thing on this particular part of our debate that I can conceed is that the soul lives on beyond the grave. There is nothing about its indestructability or immortality in scripture. You insist that the "absence of evidence does not equate to the evidence of absence"..and I say "what evidence?" and also "what about the evidence against this idea"...which you choose to simply ignore.

On the supposed staticity of the soul at death, you have given absolutely nothing the support this view. You seem to be content with the idea and unwilling to re-examine it, even though there is nothing but man's speculations behind the whole theory.
In this you have assumed...

1.) eternity is "static" and unchanging.
2.) God is therefore "static" and unchanging.
3.) the soul is the same "substance" as God because it is the breath if God.
4.) the soul therefore is also static and unchanging.

All of which has absolutely no supporting evidence. In fact, there is much that flatly makes this whole idea ridiculous when really looked at objectively and without biases born by the Church culture through the ages after Catholics took over by force of violence.

Now...I simply know too much to fall into the illogical "logic" represented by the above beliefs. You will therefore never get me to conceed on this issue. It is quite simply false doctrine. And this false doctrine has become "orthodox" Christian belief.

The Church here has done the equivelent of insisting that 2+2=5, and insisted that everyone believe that 2+2=5. If you discover that in reality 2+2=4, you are a heretic.

Not so long ago...you would be tortured and killed for being a heretic, at the hands of the "Christian" Church. And the twist here is that they justified such violence and murder because of the reasonings concerning an eternal torment after death.

So...the bottom line question is this:

What does one do when what defines "orthodoxy" is wrong?
Well...you either speak out to correct the situation, keep silent, or quit altogether and become an atheist.

I am one that speaks out to correct the situation.
You seem to want to convert me to be a Catholic. I would sooner become a Nazi.
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
1.) eternity is "static" and unchanging.

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP010.html#FPQ10A2THEP1
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP010.html#FPQ10A1THEP1

2.) God is therefore "static" and unchanging.

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP009.html#FPQ9A1THEP1

3.) the soul is the same "substance" as God because it is the breath if God.

God breathed into man the breath of life. The breath of life was comprised of naught else but God. Therefore, it must be of the same substance.

4.) the soul therefore is also static and unchanging.

That logically follows!
 

logos_x

New member
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. Boni. i), "God alone is immutable; and whatever things He has made, being from nothing, are mutable."


I answer that, God alone is altogether immutable; whereas every creature is in some way mutable. Be it known therefore that a mutable thing can be called so in two ways: by a power in itself; and by a power possessed by another. For all creatures before they existed, were possible, not by any created power, since no creature is eternal, but by the divine power alone, inasmuch as God could produce them into existence. Thus, as the production of a thing into existence depends on the will of God, so likewise it depends on His will that things should be preserved; for He does not preserve them otherwise than by ever giving them existence; hence if He took away His action from them, all things would be reduced to nothing, as appears from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 12).​

:think:

But he appears to have gotten at least some things right... ;)
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
Logos, the key word there is "Made." The soul is not a thing that was made, but rather something that issued forth and proceded. Therefore, as proceding from God, it therefore is immutable.
 

logos_x

New member
Wrong. We are not little peices of God.

We are dependent upon God, always, for our life.
Do you not see the difference?
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
logos_x said:
Wrong. We are not little peices of God.

Then again, if God did not issue forth the breath of life from his own being, then of what is the soul made? If you cannot answer that, then concede the point.
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
logos_x said:
:doh:

Oh, Lord, he is blind and cannot see!

What would happen if that "breath" ceased in you?

That "breath" cannot cease. The vital functions can cease, sure. But the soul lives on after death, namely because it can do naught else. Consider the laws of science.

Law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only change form.

Law of conservation of matter: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but only change form.
 

logos_x

New member
Apologist said:
That "breath" cannot cease. The vital functions can cease, sure. But the soul lives on after death, namely because it can do naught else. Consider the laws of science.

Law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only change form.

Law of conservation of matter: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but only change form.

It it here because God causes it...and continues to cause it? Or not?
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
logos_x said:
It it here because God causes it...and continues to cause it? Or not?

It is here because it proceded from God and issued forth from God. It is a piece of God, per se.
 

logos_x

New member
Apologist said:
It is here because it proceded from God and issued forth from God. It is a piece of God, per se.

I submit that it also continues because God sustains it, and without that sustenance, it would not be.
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
logos_x said:
I submit that it also continues because God sustains it, and without that sustenance, it would not be.

I submit that the laws of science negate your futile argument.
 

logos_x

New member
Apologist said:
I submit that the laws of science negate your futile argument.

So, the laws of science negates God's upholding creation by the Word of His power?

This should be interesting... :chuckle:
 

Apologist

BANNED
Banned
logos_x said:
So, the laws of science negates God's upholding creation by the Word of His power?

This should be interesting... :chuckle:

Whatever the case, i do believe that this particular line of argument has been argued through, everyone caring to read, I think, can fully well understand both our sides. Now, the last point:

Papa said so, and the Magisterium concurs. :thumb:


EWTN's proof of Magisterial Authority

EWTN's proof for Papal infallibility
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top